The Courts are corruptly protecting the legal profession and wealthy criminals from their victims. Solution:

Campaign now to replace the legal system that looks after the perpetrators with a justice system that cares for victims.

This Labor Government has an unwritten policy to allow Judges to be corrupt. It will not make laws against Judges accepting bribes and there is not anyone allowed to investigate judicial corruption. Your job, your business, your property and your well being can be stolen from you by criminals and our Legal system will protect the criminals from you when you deserve a remedy for your losses and suffering. New York, twenty years ago, was a crime ridden city until the new Mayor introduced a zero tolerance policy. Queensland will be a much happier and prosperous place with a zero tolerance policy to injustice. We need a justice system - not a legal system.

Lawyers writing letters with expensive bills does not deliver justice. Few lawyers know how to plead a case in Court. A new class of professional litigator is needed now. The Courts demand insurmountable complexity to deny victims justice. If the Courts wanted people to get justice they would show the way - they do not - they hide pleadings - rules, examples, causes of actions away and make discretionary decisions defining pleadings as wrong to remove victims from their Courts.

How Judges act corruptly

A claim must have a "cause of Action" examples being defamation, invasion of privacy, trespass. But nowhere does the Court state what the causes of actions are and when the wrong words are used the wealthy criminal's barrister can claim "that is a cause of action not known in law" and a strike out of a Statement of Claim is successful. Nowhere does the Court say how a cause of action is to be pleaded so Judges can use their discretion and whim to decide a statement of claim is not properly pleaded and strike it out.

In Robertson v Hollings the Court of Appeal damnified the victim with lies that she did not have a kennel licence and then decides the perpetrators should have justice and mercy (wins) while the poor victim gets nothing but the costs. In this case the victim was harassed for 7 months with threatening phone calls, was assaulted, got lots of nasty letters, was verbally abused, had valuable property jewellery, cash, antiques valued at $180,000 stolen from her and caused to live in such fear and terror she was too frightened to have her lights and TV on at night for fear that someone would realise she was home and come and carry out their threats. Everything for the perpetrator, nothing but costs to the victim - this is our legal system.

Having filed a Statement of Claim using the Court's own promoted District Court case - Gross v Purvis as a template the Judge decided that each perpetrator should have the pleadings detailed individually and each cause of action must be pleaded individually. Gross v Purvis statement of claim would never have made it to a decision if this rule had been applied to Gross. The Robertson Statement of Claim (amended because defendants claimed did not contain enough particulars) was struck out without leave to replead by a Supreme Court Judge. The rules say pleadings must be concise and struck out the Statement of Claim as defective. The Court of Appeal did not see the Statement of Claim where each cause of action and each party were pleaded separately as being worthy either. The next hurdle will be a strike out claiming the pleadings do not obey the rules because they are not concise. Victims cannot get past first base. In another matter the perpetrator has had 5 tries to strike out, the victim would never get another chance. Judges behave unfairly towards victims.

In another matter, a defamation, the Butterworths Bible on pleadings prescribes the offensive comment is identified as a PARTICULAR. Judge White says this is wrong it should be a MATERIAL FACT. Butterworths says you can attached the offensive published document and Judge White states that because the pleading has no date reference because the document has no date on it the document is not properly identified - even when it is attached to the Statement of Claim. Judges are playing mind games against victims to deny them their day in Court.

Nowhere does the Court say that the claim must include a list of causes of actions (which can be inventions that the court can or cannot agree with as they are not prescribed anywhere) and then strike out a statement of claim with leave to replead. When the new statement of claim is pleaded the opposition can ask for strike out quoting the Limitations of Actions Act saying that cause of action is out of time even though it was identified in the original statement of claim which was filed in time.

A perpetrator knows or would know that when the do someone else harm all they have to do is make sure the person is significantly harmed and suffers emotional and mental problems as by the time they recover they will be out of time and unable to take the matter to Court. Little negotiations and offers to pay causing delay wins by delay.

In Magistrates Courts corruption is rife. The procedure they employ is to strike out the victim's evidence "as not relevant", allow their witnesses to be intimidated, allow the perpetrators to lie with provable lies and accept this as credible evidence, ignore the law. Where the Magistrates Court Act section 43 states an order or judgment of a Magistrate is final meaning the case is finished, even after this order was appealed and the appeal was lost, the Magistrate can say the matter is not finished and punish the victim over and over again with costs order even though there is no law that allow them to make a victim pay costs in a Direction or ruling hearing. They invent their own rules at their own discretion. Then it all becomes a covrup because the only person allowed access to the transcripts are those who "have an interest in the matter at the discretion of the registrar.

District Courts whilly nilly strike out appeals stating there are no valid grounds - they are no better than Magistrates.

This is how the Courts can act corruptly - they abuse their power with their discretion to strike out victims giving the benefits to perpetrators on their own whims.

Solution:

1. We need a new 1 year course - a Diploma in Litigation producing people who know how to take a matter to Court and can compete the existing legal profession out of the Courts.
2. Judges must be elected;
3. Rules that Judges cannot take bribes and a Court Investigative service to ensure Judges are behaving honestly;
4. Rules with examples of how to plead claims and statements of claim so that Judges cannot willy nilly change the rules and strike the victims out of court.
5. All the Causes of Actions identified with appropriate law so Judges cannot dismiss claims stating that the cause of action is not known to law.
6. Courts must be more open and accountable and claims and statements of claims published so people can see what victims Judges are striking out and denying their remedy in court and why.
7. The limitations of Actions Act is oppressive mostly to those who have been massively oppressed by the crimes they have suffered as by the time the victim recovers they are out of time to litigate for a remedy.

This problem is real. Failing to give people a justice remedy leaves them seeking alternatives which make this state a violent scarey place to live.

Your replies will make you a member of this campaign. Get involved, add your comments, resist the establishment, do not allow yourself to be bullied or influenced otherwise. Research the legal system and its corruption and failures.